From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 111416 invoked by alias); 3 Apr 2019 17:03:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 111407 invoked by uid 89); 3 Apr 2019 17:03:54 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy= X-HELO: mail-wr1-f66.google.com Received: from mail-wr1-f66.google.com (HELO mail-wr1-f66.google.com) (209.85.221.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:03:53 +0000 Received: by mail-wr1-f66.google.com with SMTP id q1so22426073wrp.0 for ; Wed, 03 Apr 2019 10:03:53 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from ?IPv6:2001:8a0:f913:f700:56ee:75ff:fe8d:232b? ([2001:8a0:f913:f700:56ee:75ff:fe8d:232b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 204sm32014598wmc.1.2019.04.03.10.03.50 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 03 Apr 2019 10:03:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 16/22] Rewrite TRY/CATCH To: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20190227201849.32210-1-tom@tromey.com> <20190227201849.32210-17-tom@tromey.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <6d3db049-7f59-fcd7-b4bf-f1bc2f427142@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:03:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190227201849.32210-17-tom@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2019-04/txt/msg00046.txt.bz2 On 02/27/2019 08:18 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > This rewrites gdb's TRY/CATCH to plain C++ try/catch. The patch was > largely written by script, though one change (to a comment in > common-exceptions.h) was reverted by hand. I reviewed this one and the next as a squashed view (any reason you didn't squash them?), and it looks OK to me, though personally I'd much prefer to see the explicit "struct" in: - CATCH (e, RETURN_MASK_ERROR) + catch (const struct gdb_exception_error &e) go away, and end up with just: catch (const gdb_exception_error &e) Thanks, Pedro Alves